User talk:Anythingyouwant

Archive

Suggestion

If you like, I could put your archive links into the {{Archive box}} template at the page you have linked above and then transclude the page here. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 15:27, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Nah, thanks anyway. I'm going for a minimalist look.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:31, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Okie Dokie. :) I did though change it from a weblink to a WikiLink. You just have to put certain parts of the link into two brackets and add a | to seperate and it gets rid of that arrow, but goes to the same page. Looks cleaner. You can revert if you like. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 15:37, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Thx, the arrow was non-minimalist. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:53, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:58, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Good news, everyone!

The A-Class Review for the Frank Buckles article was closed and promoted just moments ago. I want personally thank you for your help on the article and hope to work again with you on the FAC in the near future. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 10:22, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Good work.  :-)Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:12, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Help Needed

Can you give the "secret of long life" paragraph a look-see? I put two sentences together, but something about it still bothers me and it is part of the review by User:Nikkimaria. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:01, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Done. Plus I'm not sure the parenthetical about middle school is needed; maybe better to just say he went to school in one town and then another..Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:07, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Sleep

I am heading to bed...yeah, at 8:30am EDT. I am leaving the FAC in your able hands. If you run into any problems, just track down User:Wehwalt, User:Acroterion‎ or User:MuZemike‎, they can help. See you later on today (probably around 6:00pm EDT. Take Care...Neutralhomer • Talk • 12:33, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Your FA nomination has attracted a lot of useful comments, and you've used those comments to quickly revise the article. I've made a few revisions too. Whether reviewers will now take a fresh look, I don't know. I hope so. Anyway, the article's better now.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:08, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Just want to make it clear you haven't done anything to set me off. This is kind of how things go for me at FAC ... I avoid saying anything when I can, but when I feel (for whatever strange reason) that the time has come for me to cover something that we haven't covered adequately before, I try to hit all the main points, rather than dribbling the conversation out over multiple FACs, so that I can link to it when it comes up again. Thanks for your help with the article, much appreciated. (Watching) - Dank (push to talk) 17:06, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

No problem at all. Please let me know if I've not fully responded to anything you said. I honestly didn't realize before that I was doing the dates wrong, so you're giving me a free tutorial (Malleus did too regarding my overuse of the word "also"). Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:14, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Everything looks good. In fact, if you're planning on nominating more FAC (or A-class) articles, you may want to do a couple more reviews, it will help draw reviewers to your own nominations. Selfishly, let me suggest any of Milhist's 12 active FACs: May Revolution • Frank Buckles • Russian battleship Sevastopol (1895) • RAF Northolt • Peace dollar • Pigeon photographer • Abraham Lincoln • Ernst Lindemann • SMS Bayern (1915) • Sack of Amorium • Charles Holden • USS New Ironsides. - Dank (push to talk) 20:11, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll think about it, though a lot of non-Wikipedia stuff is going on here right now. The Lincoln article looks tempting. I was at the Bowdoin College Special Collections a few months ago, and they actually have a hand-print of Lincoln. The guy had HUGE hands (perhaps due to Marfan's Syndrome). Not that the Wikipedia article should mention it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:27, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Current Version

That isn't necessary, you are co-nom to the whole thing, I just didn't know how to do it when I started the FAC. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:21, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Saying "current version" maintains consistency with content of my struck-out comment, I think. My understanding is a little bit fuzzy about whether you have to believe an article is feature-class when you nominate, or whether it's sufficient when you nominate to believe that the article is so close that the FAC process will render it feature-class. In any event, it does definitely seem feature-class now.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:04, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Okie Dokie, just wanted to clarify that. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:18, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

• Hey, can you take a look at the dates on the article? I missed one that was still in Y/D/M format and after a couple, I start getting dyslexic and everything gets jumbled, so I start missing things. I think I have them all, but I can't be certain. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:22, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Sure, will do.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:24, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I am working on an image problem (the belt buckle) for Nikkimaria (she posted again on the FAC), so I am working on that. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:35, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Looks to me like the only hyphenated date is at the end of the "See also" section. You could be the first person in Wikipedia history to do a piped link in a "See also" section. :)Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:41, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Nah, I don't think I will make any history today.....maybe tomorrow. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:59, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Buckles

Hi, dont get me wrong, its a very good and poinant article. I have a tendancy to be tearse, was not indenting to offend. I reread most of it just now, and the problems I saw in the lead do not extend to the rest of the page which is thighly written in my openion. O and hello from an fellow ex FAR editor in the 2007/2008 era, the good old days eh ;). Ceoil 15:18, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

No, I wasn't offended at all. I'm a pedestrian every day when I go for a walk, so you'll have to do a lot better than that if you ever want to offend! Seriously, I think FAR is working like a charm here to produce a better article, regardless of whether it gets the gold star or not. Even MH MF has been extremely helpful, though I'd never tell him so directly. :-)Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:33, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Well you dont want to him blush do you ;). By the way, do you actually know macroom or were you just trying to charm me. I always assumed you were american. Ceoil 15:45, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

No, I would never try to charm a FAC reviewer. I just like a good rhyme (assume Macroom). The article calls Macroom "the town that never reared a fool" but you call it instead "the town that never raised a fool". Close enough. I was in the US Army in Germany (later than Buckles was), but haven't yet been to Ireland. Cheers. :)Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:21, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, I wrote the macroom article. Funnily enough, the statement about no fools is pure fact, but v hard to cite! Its not OR as its a well known claim, but there hasnt been much hard, cold, independant scientific research on it. But its patently true. Ceoil 16:36, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I can see it's true (charming now).Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:42, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

You old dog. Ceoil 00:23, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Some day soon I'm going to crawl out of my computer and support you article. Ceoil 01:26, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Excellent!!! Please spell well in that instance.  :-)Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:29, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Lincoln FAN

Thanks for your input, which I do think improves the article. I understand taking a break too, I was thinking I should take a break as well. I am surprised there aren't more editors who would want to work on the editing side here. Certainly, AL deserves more than a solitary retired lawyer ensconced in his house with pollen allergies and tenitis! Thanks again for your efforts, Pal. Carmarg4 (talk) 11:47, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Sure, my pleasure. As a Clint Eastwood character once said, "Deserve's got nothing to do with it". If you want more editors on the editing side, maybe someone would jump in if you ask. Not me, though, because I'm driving down to DC from New England today, and then will be scurrying around for awhile. BTW, Claritan works wonders for me. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:47, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Also check out the older antihistamines, chlorphenamine (the newer spelling) and benadryl; all the newer antihistamines are too weak for me. Will you still be in the DC area on May 7, in time for WP:Meetup/DC 17? I'll be there, all Saturday and Sunday too. Also ... great, great work on Abe, both of you! I hated the "musician" hatnote that you just got rid of. I'll start my editing on it soon. - Dank (push to talk) 20:42, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I'll keep the DC meetup in mind. Never been to a meetup. Kind of conflicts with anonymity (I think New York Brad got "outed" that way). Anyway, it would be great to have you helping out at the AL article. Maybe AL said something useful about allergies at some point. Cheers. Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:15, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I changed my mind; you guys are doing a fine job on Abe, and I need to focus on some of the Milhist articles that aren't getting much attention. - Dank (push to talk) 14:32, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Please check footnote #218 - I used your web link as a ref. for the remark about U.S = singular/plural; I cannot get the link in the correct format, though the link works fine. Thanks. Carmarg4 (talk) 18:12, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

All fixed now. There was a carriage return (nowadays known as a line break or some such nonsense) messing up the footnote. Keep marching on.  :-)Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:31, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for all your work on this; the article is much improved despite no promotion. Carmarg4 (talk) 12:26, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Anythingyouwant. You have new messages at Neutralhomer's talk page.
Message added 00:54, 29 April 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Section Move

On this, I don't know if I would move that, as it kinda throws things off. I kinda like the chronological feel to the sections, but without being chronological. I think it would be more "fluid" if the sections were left as they were. I am, as always, open to ideas. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:08, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

It's not a huge issue, but standard practice is to put honors and awards at the end. For example, see Douglas_MacArthur#Honors_and_awards. One reason is because it breaks chronological order. In this case, there's another reason too: on some computers, there's a bunch of white space after the text, because the image of Gates and Buckles extends below the text.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:13, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

You have a point. Perhaps if we broke up the "on <insert date>..." language, it wouldn't be so out of place. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:00, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Rule of law — Definition(s)

Re your reversion of my "Definition" section in the Rule of law article on the grounds that it's "already covered in the next section", actually the next section rather mentions it in passing. Someone coming to the article wanting a concise definition of the Rule of Law won't find it, because it's buried in the middle of a discussion of duelling interpretations. The section titles and even paragraph ledes give no hint as to where in the article to find the definition(s).

Perhaps my edit would have been better as a re-working of that next section, of course. Indeed, perhaps that next section should be a sub-section of a "Definitions" section, so that the definitions are given and then discussed in contrast to each other, rather than the definitions and discussion being intermingled.

Sabik (talk) 04:35, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I already started a discussion about this at the article talk page, so that's probably the best place to discuss it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:48, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Ah, of course --- responding there.Sabik (talk) 05:21, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

YGM

Hello, Anythingyouwant. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

- Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:47, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree 100%.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:01, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Buckles

This was a learning experience for me. My guess is that for articles where the sources are all recent and laudatory, the article probably won't get through FAC. Sorry I didn't know that before, could have saved you some trouble :) - Dank (push to talk) 13:35, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

No problem. Next time let's work on an article where all the sources are disparaging, maybe a rapist or murderer. FAC will love it.  :-)Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:40, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I would say don't give up on this one. Any concerns I had were more than met, and you can take my support as granted. I was thougtless and forgot to revisit. I know I'm only one vote, but there is the luck of the draw about these things, and its a fine article, as usual from you. And yes, I CAN spell suoppurt, I'm not thick. Ceoil 10:47, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Ceoil, no problem. I figure we'll wait a year or so, and see if any biographical books or documentaries come out about Buckles. Like Claude Choules used to say, "All things come Everything comes to those who wait, and wait."Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:56, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Great plan, and where does the Choules quote come from? I need to nail that somewhere in my userspace. - Dank (push to talk) 19:36, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

[1] :-)Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:39, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Either way, give me a shout when you re-nom, if only for the opp to re-bitch about pedestrain prose. Or tatty sourcing, or christ awful images. Ceoil 00:55, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Will do. Bitchipedia and I are grateful.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:57, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

North American / Pacific / Western Cordillera

WikiThanks

Thanks for doing a great job cleaning up the article. I'll wait to do any edits until it looks like it settles down.

In the meanwhile, I proposed a different title at Talk:Western Cordillera --- back in the flood of debate in Jan 2009 over the article, I found that Encyclopedia Britannica called the mountain system the "North American Cordillera". What do you think: should we adopt their title? —hike395 (talk) 16:17, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi, thanks. The lead of the article mentions that this thing is also called the "North American Cordillera, the Western Cordillera of North America, or the Pacific Cordillera" so maybe that's adequate, instead of changing the title of the article, unless you think that "North American Cordillera" is a more common term than "Western Cordillera" (the best way to find out would be to search both terms on Google Books and compare the results). I'll go hike over to the article talk page now, to discuss this. See ya there.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:00, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Natural born citizen clause

Hi. If you have machine-readable copies of the two articles which you and Weazie were disputing about (regarding what they had to say about Vattel and his possible influence on the framers of the Constitution), would you be willing to send copies to me, and I'll take a look at them and let people know what I think about their relevance? Contact me via the "E-mail this user" link on my user page or talk page, and I'll send you my e-mail address. Richwales (talk · contribs) 23:05, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi, all you have to do is go to the links provided, and click on "One-Click Download".Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:18, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm. When I tried this from home last night, I was told I would have to pay $$$. I tried it from work (a university) just now, and I was able to download the papers for free without difficulty. :-) Now I'll take a look at what they say about Vattel. Thanks. Richwales (talk · contribs) 23:32, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

No problem, I hope you find SSRN to be a handy resource. Anyway, I've quoted the pertinent stuff at the article talk page.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:33, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Having seen how these two articles cite Vattel's writings, I'm reluctantly forced to conclude that these are probably not adequate sources for the specific point at issue.

The Han article (Drake Law Review) quotes Chief Justice Fuller's dissent in Wong Kim Ark, in which he said that "Before the Revolution, the view of the publicists had been thus put by Vattel". This suggests that Vattel's ideas regarding "The natives, or natural-born citizens" — as well as "in order to be of the country" — were widespread to some extent, but it doesn't really say to what extent (if any) these ideas influenced the writers of the Constitution; that final step seems, to me, to require a leap of WP:SYNTH. And there is still the nagging issue of which translation of Vattel is being talked about, and whether any English translation using the phrase "natural-born citizens" existed prior to the writing of the Constitution.

The Chin article (Arizona Legal Studies) mentions Vattel in the context of Justice Daniel's concurrence in Dred Scott, who also cites the same two points from Vattel. Daniel cites Vattel as what he considered to be an authoritative source, but again, he doesn't directly address the question of how (if at all) Vattel's thoughts influenced the writers of the Constitution.

We might be able to get away with saying that Vattel's work was part of the general legal / philosophical climate in late 18th-century America — but if someone is really looking for solid backing for a claim that Vattel did influence the framers of the Constitution, I don't think we can find it in either of these articles. Even calling Vattel a "possible" source for the meaning of "natural-born citizen" can't really be backed (IMO) from these two sources, since neither article specifically tries to argue that Vattel's writings establish the original intent of the Constitution on this point (they presumably imply it, but I don't think that's going to fly here).

It might be possible to use these two papers as valid secondary sources supporting the proposition that Justices Fuller and Daniel considered Vattel's writings to be persuasive with regard to the true meaning of "natural-born citizen". But that idea would probably need to be woven into the article in some way other than calling it a "possible source for the meaning of this clause". And indeed, this section heading itself is susceptible to accusations of weasel-wording, and I imagine it might not last long.

If you think I'm missing something here, or misinterpreting what the authors of these two papers are saying, please let me know. I do hope this issue can be hashed out somehow, and I do think that Vattel belongs here somewhere (if only because he is cited in the Wong Kim Ark and Dred Scott dissents). Richwales (talk · contribs) 00:08, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with your last sentence, which is why I mentioned WP:Preserve at the article talk page. Anyway, thanks for looking into the matter.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:12, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi again. FYI, there is an RFC/U now open regarding Sempi's conduct on the "Natural born citizen" article (see here). I'm making sure you're aware of it in case you might want to add any comments of your own. Sempi (who is currently blocked) questioned whether I was being sufficiently even-handed in notifying everyone who might possibly have an interest on either side; I hadn't intended to act partially, but just in case, now you know. Richwales (talk · contribs) 03:40, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I probably won't have anything to say about it, but thanks for the heads up.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:22, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Check It Out

See this month's Bugle. I got credit only cause I nom'd the article for A, but you deserve all the glory on this one. Your hard work got it there. Well done, Sir. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:29, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Checked out, looks good. Thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:15, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Lincoln Memorial section

We are currently attempting to bring the Abraham Lincoln article to FA status and are trying to establish consensus regarding images. Your consensus and opinion is needed on the Abraham Lincoln talk page. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:14, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Abortion - death

Take a look at the Abortion lede. Someone is trying to change it again. 67.233.18.28 (talk) 16:59, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement request

I've requested a sanction against you to enforce the ArbCom prohibition from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ferrylodge against disruptive editing on abortion-related articles. The request is currently at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement should you wish to respond to it. MastCell ^Talk 21:04, 23 June 2011 (UTC)